Intelligent Design - Science topic

Without Logos, what makes sense?

1)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374913431_Highly_Theoretical_Differential_Equations_of_the_Afterlife

2)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377663987_Respectfully_and_Unfortunately_The_Improbability_of_and_Danger_in_Believing_in_Reincarnation

No mutation can change an animal into a human and no gene is completely known to manifest into a trait.

0)

0.5)

1)

2)

3)

4)

Does the complexity of humans suggest intelligent design? Why? How?

researchers in this paper conclude that : ( there is a serious waiting time problem that can constrain macroevolution. Our studies show that in such a population there is a significant waiting time problem even in terms of waiting for a specific point mutation to arise and be fixed (minimally, about 1.5 million years)... To the extent that waiting time is a serious problem for classic neo-Darwinian theory, it is only reasonable that we begin to examine alternative models regarding how biological information arises. )

so how can macroevolution have enough time to occur ?

Olen R.Brown & David A.Hullender published a paper in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal in August 2022 with the name ( Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to survive ) : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610722000347

the writers doubt macroevolution or the ability of known mechanisms of evolution to explain macroevolution as they say :

The central focus of this perspective is to provide evidence to document that selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for other than microevolution. Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10−50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms.

Intelligent building ( IB. ) is a part of information technology, to preparer research in this topic you need to deal with an appropriate approach.

To understand an IB you need to understand the nature of intelligent system in buildings which depends on different aspects.

Artificial intelligence has applied in many fields. In product design process, the application of artificial intelligence is expert system. Can artificial intelligence design product without engineer?

First there was philosophy (φίλος - philo - friend, sophy- σοφία - - wisdom), thus friend of knowledge and the seeker of truth and knowledge everywhere, and then came science. This is a long forgotten truth, and many scientists today turn against philosophy and into mockery of it.

THE TRUTH HOWEVER IS PHILOSOPHY IS THE MOTHER OF ALL SCIENCES THERE ARE TODAY IF THEY LIKE IT OR NOT YOU CAN NOT DENY IT OR ELSE YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED...

The main reason why many scientists deny like Hell philosophy today and don't regard it as a science is it's branch of religion and theology, although it is the mother of all sciences and a a science discipline today.

Is it not whatever field of knowledge and information man studies exhaustively and systematically using his higher mental powers and logic tools for the betterment of human civilization, CALLED SCIENCE?!! Isn't it? Is this not the definition of science and its disciplines?

You see there is out there a stupid believe (propaganda ? ) that you can not have faith without science (and in many cases they mean their science). So yes there is a cabal and trend out there today to discourage any scientist to be a believer of GOD almighty. In order to be "a good scientist you must be an atheist" and they promote this unacceptable position whenever they can through media... we see this everyday.

However, these people and GOD faith deniers are in error, and not real wise people and therefore not really philosophers and thus ironically behave unscientific.

So, for example, what is the difference really of telling to someone that GOD snapped his fingers and everything came out... From, suddenly out of nowhere a big bang created everything?... They just replaced the word God with Big Bang! . You can't deny that....

So ATHEISTS scientists are actually ironically faith believers and actually religious THEMSELVES... THEIR RELIGION! they believe ultimately in something (e.g. Big Bang theory) they can not prove and therefore are also driven by faith as the rest.

So far no problem.. However, the problem arises and got much worst the last decade when these allegedly "atheists scientists" through media and other means attack to GOD faith believer fellow scientists, and try to enforce and push down the throat THEIR BELIEVES to the general public.

THIS HAS TO STOP NOW... AND STOP THESE SCIENTISTS OF MAKING PUBLICLY A mockery of themselves and science by behaving more like PRIESTS THAN SCIENTISTS!!

Science disciplines should really concentrate on their study and leave the religion matters of each fellow scientists alone not interfering and spreading propaganda.

Thank you for letting me express this Philosophical Question and pointing out a modern dangerous phenomena of science that potentially and in the long run harms scientific progression and can turn science into dogma.

Emmanouil.

Spontaneous generation:- the life was start with inorganic things.

Evolution theory :- the further progress of life was evolutionary and it depends on organic things.

Intelligent Design: Everything of the universe are intelligently designed (Rule of the universe is observed by us is science or it is an intelligent process.) by the rule of universe.

What does it take to do phenomenal inventions?? What researchers must have in their minds?

We understand that a cloud computing platform should be a online system any time. And, the cloud platform has the completeness good enough to keep SLA for a client.

With a optmized Cost/performance Quality Assurance Metric method, it is ncessary to develop an assessment framwork to guarantee  the completeness of Intelligent Deisgn System, such as a cloud computing platform.

The Anthropic Principle stands out most as the first attempt, which arose after the beginning of modernity, aiming to show that giving man a more significant role it can come to a better scientific understanding of the universe, its properties and its evolution.

The Anthropic Principle bridges science and humanism, re-evaluates elements of dialogue and discussion with philosophy, than it happened in relation to the natural sciences. The debate that ensued in the last decades is, along with the so-called "problem of the origins", one of the major fields of interdisciplinary debate between science and philosophy. Although, according to the Anthropic Principle, is man to make sense of the universe and not vice versa refers mainly to the field of cosmology. Its suggestions span with some continuity even in biology, where it gathers some of the instances of overcoming the Darwinian paradigm, flowing towards a vision of the cosmos and of nature that a recent strand of Anglo-Saxon thought intended to call "intelligent design", thus being in an open area of confrontation with philosophy.

In both scientific and philosophical fields reserves have been advanced about the real meaning of the Principle and provided with possible solutions to what it claims. We refer, in the discussion that follows, to the "core" of the principle, that is to the coincidences and delicate conditions (fine tuning) that it reports, abstracting for the moment from their different possible use (weak or strong).

It is not difficult to see that the three major objections to the Anthropic Principle (except maybe the first) are forced to resort to philosophical arguments a priori, i.e. that are placed on a level of understanding and abstraction that goes beyond the scope of the experimental data from the same principle which, instead, is built as a question, As evidence of the philosophical significance of the answers we could cite the pioneering article by Carter (1974), in which the author asserts that "if, by proceeding in this way, it turned out that we got always the strict limits [man-made], and at the same time our attempts to derive those limits from more general and fundamental mathematical structures fail, this would be evidence that the philosophy of all the worlds should be taken seriously, even if we do not like it "(p. 298).

It is not surprising then that solutions to the problem, alternatives to those of Carter, are always addressed on a philosophical level rather than on the experimental one, as in the conclusion of John Leslie to his monograph on the topic: "the careful tuning (fine tuning) is an evidence, a genuine highlight, of the following fact: that God is something real and / or there are many different universes "(Leslie, 1989, p. 198).

It is still a philosophical perspective the one that would have the SAP (Strong Anthropic Principle) as an expression of the evolutionary course of a great immanent law in the cosmos itself, whose ultimate consequences are to generate intelligent life in which, and through which, the 'universe "takes consciousness of itself." It could be argued that an intelligent life is the subject of a philosophical reflection even more fundamental, which is not limited to "give voice" to cosmic evolution. As observed appropriately in this regard, "the fundamental recognition that must be elaborated by the mind, is not that of a cosmos that proves intelligible, but of the recognition of our contingent existence in a depending universe. This recognition has as a condition of the possibility of man having a horizon of absolute transcendence and flows into the recognition of being a creature of its own and of the entire physical universe, namely the acknowledgment of the intrinsic return of this contingent existence of a reality " other "absolutely fundamental" (S.Muratore, 1993, pp. 159-160). To reason otherwise would be tantamount to the idealist position to conceive a universe completely self.

As said, the "Anthropic principle", puts man at the center of the universe, crashing with the hypothesis of a neo-Darwinian mechanism that has as base only "chance and selection”.

To diminish the importance of man (with obvious philosophical aims) neo-Darwinists have therefore postulate the existence of billions of other universes, each with different physical laws and constants. In this way, in the midst of so much variety, it would be plausible to find one with the right features for the birth and evolution of life.

The philosopher points out that there are both scientific and philosophical evidences to support the claim that the universe came into existence and therefore had a beginning. Even in the case of actual existence of the "multiverse", nothing would be resolved because it too would need a root, cause of existence. The argument continues by indicating the characteristics that this cause of the universe must have: it must be "immaterial, timeless, without change and possess a power unimaginable."